大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊和布雷特·卡瓦诺在周一晚间的一场罕见而坦率的讨论中，就最高法院处理紧急案件日程表（有时被称为”影子 docket”）的方式产生了分歧。
拜登政府任命的杰克逊大法官表示，最高法院在紧急案件日程表（即”影子 docket”）方面大多数时候倾向于支持唐纳德·特朗普总统，这是一个”问题”。这位自由派大法官是三名常与特朗普在紧急裁决中持反对立场的法官之一，而特朗普在这些紧急裁决中的支持率通常以6比3的投票结果倾向于总统。
“政府正在制定新政策……并坚持要求新政策立即生效，而在对该政策的挑战得到裁决之前，”杰克逊根据美联社和全国广播公司新闻的报道表示，”最高法院越来越愿意介入紧急案件日程表中的案件，这确实是一个不幸的问题。”
最高法院紧急日程表为特朗普带来一连串胜利，最终考验临近
（最高法院大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊。Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images）
杰克逊说：”这对法院和这个国家都没有好处。”
特朗普政府任命的卡瓦诺反驳称，最高法院处理紧急请求的方式并非特朗普政府独有，尽管前总统时期的临时请求较少，但最高法院对拜登政府也采取了同样的处理方式。
卡瓦诺表示，由于国会通过的立法减少，总统在行政命令方面”越界”的情况更多。
“有些是合法的，有些是不合法的，”卡瓦诺说，随后补充道，”我们没有人喜欢这种情况。”
两人在法庭上发表讲话，这是为纪念华盛顿特区美国地区法院已故法官托马斯·弗拉纳里而举办的年度讲座，当时包括詹姆斯·博阿斯伯格法官等几位联邦法官在场旁听。
（最高法院大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺讲话。Reuters）
杰克逊的批评并非新事；她或许是在紧急案件日程表案件中最直言不讳的异议者。
今年8月，她在对一项紧急裁决的异议中抨击最高法院多数派在法庭上”立法”，该裁决临时允许美国国立卫生研究院取消约7.38亿美元的赠款资金。
“这是带有转折的加尔文球法学（Calvinball jurisprudence）。加尔文球只有一条规则：没有固定规则。我们似乎有两条规则：第一，没有固定规则；第二，本届政府总是赢，”杰克逊写道。
特朗普政府在下级法院面临数百起诉讼和不利裁决，而代表政府在最高法院出庭的司法部副检察长办公室通常不会将案件提升至最高法院审理。
杰克逊在高调裁决后对同事提出党派指责，异议措辞尖锐
（2026年1月13日，华盛顿最高法院。AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File）
此类紧急请求允许政府绕过冗长的法庭程序，包括大量简报和口头辩论，在面临下级法院的限制令和禁令时寻求即时救济。
根据布伦南司法中心的数据，特朗普政府已向最高法院提出约30份紧急申请，成功率约为80%。
点击此处获取福克斯新闻应用
通过紧急日程表，最高法院批准了特朗普的大规模解雇行动，限制了全国范围内的禁令，并为被批评者视为有争议的驱逐和移民停止行动扫清了道路。大法官们还裁定，政府目前可以解雇变性军人。
但特朗普通过这种方式并非总能成功。法官要求政府向根据《外国敌人法》被驱逐的所谓非法移民提供更多通知，并同意下级法院的意见，即总统在芝加哥的移民打击行动中不当将国民警卫队联邦化。
阿什利·奥利弗是福克斯新闻数字网和福克斯商业频道的记者，报道司法部和法律事务。请将新闻线索发送至ashley.oliver@fox.com。
Justices Jackson and Kavanaugh clash over ‘shadow docket’ in Trump era | Fox News
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh had a dispute over the high court’s approach to its emergency docket in a rare, candid discussion during an event Monday night.
Jackson, a Biden appointee, signaled that the high court’s willingness to side with President Donald Trump most of the time when it comes to the emergency docket, sometimes known as the “shadow docket,” was a “problem.” The liberal justice is one of three, and all have frequently sided against Trump in emergency decisions, which have often broken 6-3 in favor of the president.
“The administration is making new policy … and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided,” Jackson said, according to reports from The Associated Press and NBC News. “This uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem.”
SUPREME COURT’S EMERGENCY DOCKET DELIVERS TRUMP STRING OF WINS AS FINAL TESTS LOOM
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Jackson said: “It’s not serving the court or this country well.”
Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, countered that the Supreme Court’s approach to emergency requests was not unique to the Trump administration and that the high court handled the Biden administration the same way despite there being fewer interim requests under the former president.
Kavanaugh said presidents “push the envelope” more with executive orders because Congress is passing less legislation.
“Some are lawful, some are not,” Kavanaugh said, later adding, “None of us enjoy this.”
The pair spoke in a courtroom during an annual lecture honoring the late Judge Thomas Flannery of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., while several federal judges, including high-profile ones like Judge James Boasberg, looked on.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh speaks.(Reuters)
Jackson’s criticism is not new; she has been perhaps the most vocal dissenter in emergency docket cases.
In August, she lambasted the Supreme Court majority for “lawmaking” from the bench in a dissent to an emergency decision to temporarily allow the National Institutes of Health’s cancellation of about $738 million in grant money.
“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” Jackson wrote.
The Trump administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits and adverse rulings in the lower courts, and the Department of Justice’s solicitor general’s office, which represents the government before the Supreme Court, often does not elevate cases to that level.
JACKSON’S SCATHING DISSENT LEVELS PARTISAN CHARGE AT COLLEAGUES AFTER HIGH-PROFILE RULING
The Supreme Court is seen, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington.(AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
Such emergency requests allow the government to bypass the lengthy court process, involving extensive briefings and oral arguments, to seek immediate relief in the face of restraining orders and injunctions in the lower courts.
The Trump administration has brought about 30 emergency applications to the Supreme Court and secured victories about 80% of the time, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Through the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has greenlit Trump’s mass firings and curtailed nationwide injunctions. The high court has also cleared the way for deportations and immigration stops viewed as controversial by critics of the administration. The justices have also found that the government can, for now, discharge transgender service members from the military.
But Trump has not won out all the time by taking this route. The justices required the administration to give more notice to alleged illegal immigrants being deported under the Alien Enemies Act and agreed with a lower court that the president improperly federalized the National Guard as part of his immigration crackdown in Chicago.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.
